Re: [GIT PULL] Btrfs updates for 6.3

Re: [GIT PULL] Btrfs updates for 6.3

[Ammar Faizi]

On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 04:54:12PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 23, 2023 at 09:27:30AM +0700, Ammar Faizi wrote:
> > On 2/21/23 4:02 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 11:26 AM David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com> wrote:
> > >> Other:
> > >>
> > >> - locally enable -Wmaybe-uninitialized after fixing all warnings
> > > 
> > > I've pulled this, but I strongly suspect this change will get reverted.
> > > 
> > > I bet neither you nor linux-next is testing even _remotely_ a big
> > > chunk of the different compiler versions that are out there, and the
> > > reason flags like '-Wmaybe-uninitialized' get undone is because some
> > > random compiler version on some random config and target archiecture
> > > gives completely nonsensical warnings for odd reasons.
> > > 
> > > But hey, maybe the btrfs code is special.
> > 
> > Maybe it's too late for 6.3. So please fix this in 6.4 and backport it to
> > 6.3 stable.
> 
> Fix for this warning is in 6.4 pull request, there's no CC:stable tag
> but we can ask to add it once the code lands in master.

It landed in master.

[ Adding stable team to the Cc list ]

Hi Greg and stable team, could you please backport:

  commit 8ba7d5f5ba931be68a94b8c91bcced1622934e7a upstream
  ("btrfs: fix uninitialized variable warnings")

to v6.3 to fix gcc (10, 9, 7) build error?

The fs/btrfs/volumes.c hunk won't apply cleanly, but it can auto-merge:

  $ git cherry-pick 8ba7d5f5ba931be68a94b8c91bcced1622934e7a
  Auto-merging fs/btrfs/volumes.c
  [detached HEAD 572410288a1070c1] btrfs: fix uninitialized variable warnings
   Author: Genjian Zhang <zhanggenjian@kylinos.cn>
   Date: Fri Mar 24 10:08:38 2023 +0800
   2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Thanks,

-- 
Ammar Faizi

Re: [GIT PULL] Btrfs updates for 6.3

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 10:14:58AM +0700, Ammar Faizi wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 04:54:12PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 23, 2023 at 09:27:30AM +0700, Ammar Faizi wrote:
> > > On 2/21/23 4:02 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 11:26 AM David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com> wrote:
> > > >> Other:
> > > >>
> > > >> - locally enable -Wmaybe-uninitialized after fixing all warnings
> > > > 
> > > > I've pulled this, but I strongly suspect this change will get reverted.
> > > > 
> > > > I bet neither you nor linux-next is testing even _remotely_ a big
> > > > chunk of the different compiler versions that are out there, and the
> > > > reason flags like '-Wmaybe-uninitialized' get undone is because some
> > > > random compiler version on some random config and target archiecture
> > > > gives completely nonsensical warnings for odd reasons.
> > > > 
> > > > But hey, maybe the btrfs code is special.
> > > 
> > > Maybe it's too late for 6.3. So please fix this in 6.4 and backport it to
> > > 6.3 stable.
> > 
> > Fix for this warning is in 6.4 pull request, there's no CC:stable tag
> > but we can ask to add it once the code lands in master.
> 
> It landed in master.
> 
> [ Adding stable team to the Cc list ]
> 
> Hi Greg and stable team, could you please backport:
> 
>   commit 8ba7d5f5ba931be68a94b8c91bcced1622934e7a upstream
>   ("btrfs: fix uninitialized variable warnings")
> 
> to v6.3 to fix gcc (10, 9, 7) build error?
> 
> The fs/btrfs/volumes.c hunk won't apply cleanly, but it can auto-merge:
> 
>   $ git cherry-pick 8ba7d5f5ba931be68a94b8c91bcced1622934e7a
>   Auto-merging fs/btrfs/volumes.c
>   [detached HEAD 572410288a1070c1] btrfs: fix uninitialized variable warnings
>    Author: Genjian Zhang <zhanggenjian@kylinos.cn>
>    Date: Fri Mar 24 10:08:38 2023 +0800
>    2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Now queued up, thanks.

greg k-h